SB771 revises Maryland law governing peer-to-peer car sharing programs, with a focus on insurance coverage, liability allocation, and related consumer disclosures. The bill removes language that had made a peer-to-peer car sharing program’s insurance secondary in certain circumstances and instead requires the program to ensure that, during each car sharing period, the owner and driver are covered by a motor vehicle liability policy meeting at least Maryland’s minimum security requirements. It also clarifies that coverage may be provided by the owner, the driver, the program, or a combination of those sources, and it adds special rules for replacement vehicles and for claims arising in states with higher minimum insurance limits.
The bill also updates how peer-to-peer car sharing programs interact with existing insurance and transportation laws. It allows programs to transfer monetary liability to drivers for tolls, fees, charges, and fines incurred during the car sharing period, excludes peer-to-peer car sharing programs from the definition of “owner” for red-light camera citations, and states that these programs are not to be treated as rental companies solely because a vehicle is shared through the platform. In addition, it preserves insurers’ ability to exclude coverage for vehicles made available for rent, sharing, or hire, while limiting the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund’s obligation to provide coverage for non-replacement shared vehicles.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s history is strongly favorable. The bill was reported favorably from committee and passed the Senate on third reading by a unanimous 47-0 vote, indicating broad support and little visible opposition in the available record. The absence of committee transcript material suggests there were no recorded public disputes in the provided materials.
The main points of contention that the bill appears designed to address are insurance responsibility and risk allocation between the car sharing platform, the vehicle owner, and the driver. The bill narrows or clarifies when personal auto policies may exclude coverage, when the peer-to-peer program’s policy is primary, and when the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund is not required to step in. It also addresses potential liability exposure for owners and platforms, including vicarious liability and indemnification, while preserving contractual and policy exclusions already recognized under Maryland law.
SB771 amends the Insurance Article and Transportation Article to create a more specific liability and insurance framework for peer-to-peer car sharing programs. It repeals prior provisions that made certain program-provided insurance secondary for shared vehicle drivers in replacement-vehicle situations, revises minimum coverage rules, authorizes broader cost recovery from drivers, and exempts peer-to-peer car sharing programs from the “owner” definition for red-light camera civil penalties. The bill also preserves insurer exclusions for sharing-related use and limits Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund coverage obligations in specified circumstances.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan or at least noncontroversial support in the Senate. It received a favorable committee report and passed third reading unanimously, 47-0. No committee transcript was provided, and no recorded opposition appears in the available voting history, suggesting the measure was viewed as a technical or clarifying update to existing car-sharing law rather than a contentious policy change.
The central policy issues are who bears insurance risk during a car sharing period, whether the peer-to-peer platform’s coverage should be primary or secondary, and how much responsibility should remain with the vehicle owner’s personal insurer or the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund. Another area of concern is whether platforms can pass through tolls, fines, and other charges to drivers, and whether owners or drivers may face contractual or coverage consequences from sharing a vehicle. The bill resolves these issues largely in favor of clearer platform-based coverage rules and explicit exclusions, while preserving insurer policy exclusions and limiting state fund exposure.